Power of natural guardian of a Hindu Minor to enter into family arrangement.

This Second Appeal raises the question whether a Hindu minor is bound by a deed of family arrangement entered into on his behalf by his natural guardian in bona fide settlement of claims against the minor’s estate and for his benefit.

One Arunachalam Pillai married two wives, Ammalammal and Sengamalathachi. By his first wife, Ammalammal, he had no issues. He had a daughter named Dhanalakshmi and a son named Palani by his second wife Sengamalam. One Rathnasami Pillai was the son of his first wife’s younger brother. Arunachalam Pillai desired that his daughter Dhanalakshmi should be given in marriage to Rathnasami Pillai. He executed a settlement deed on 17th February, 1936 in and by which he settled the A Schedule properties attached to that deed absolutely in favour of Dhanalakshmi and Rathnasami Pillai. Items 1 and 2 of the B Schedule properties attached to that settlement deed were to be enjoyed by Arunachalam Pillai himself during his lifetime and after him they were to be taken absolutely by Rathnasami and Dhanalakshmi. Item 3 of the B Schedule therein was directed to be enjoyed by his first wife Ammalammal without any right of alienation and after her lifetime that property was to be taken by Dhanalakshmi and Ratnasami absolutely. On the date of that settlement deed the settlor’s second wife, Sengamalam, was enciente and she gave birth to the son Palani on 5th April, 1936. The second wife Sengamalam did not like the settlement made by her husband as aforesaid and dissensions arose between her and her husband. Acting as the guardian of her minor son, Palani, she filed the suit O.S. No. 11 of 1937 on the file of the District Munsif’s Court of Tiruvayyaru against her husband Arunachalam Pillai and Rathnasami Pillai challenging the validity of the settlement deed. During the pendency of this suit Arunachalam Pillai died and the suit itself was withdrawn and dismissed on 18th August, 1938. But the dispute between Rathnasami and Sengamalam was not resolved and there was mediation between them by persons interested in the welfare of the minor’s family. A deed of family arrangement, dated 23rd February, 1940 was brought about between Rathnasami and Sengamalam by which Rathnasami obtained 3 items of properties absolutely for himself and relinquished all his claims under the settlement deed in his favour executed by the late Arunachalam Pillai. The items of properties obtained by Rathnasami Pillai under the family arrangement were R.S. 506/5: 12½ cents, R.S. 523/1: 39 frac12; cents, R.S. 456/8: 27½ cents, all situated in the village of Peramur, Tanjore district. These three items were numbers 3, 8 and 9 of the A Schedule properties attached to the settlement deed of Arunachalam Pillai. The net result of the family arrangement was that Rathnasami Pillai who got about 1½ acres of land under the settlement from Arunachalam Pillai gave up his claim for a good portion of those lands and was content to receive 80½ cents under the family arrangement between him and Sengamalam. Rathnasami Pillai did not marry Dhanalakshmi as proposed and wished for by Arunachalam Pillai. He sold all the three items of properties to one Sivakolunthu Pillai under a registered conveyance, dated 17th February, 1941. Sivakolunthu conveyed one of the items to one Natesa Moopanar and another item to Ramasami Pillai. Rathnasami Pillai died and Dhanalakshmi married one Subbaraya Pillai in 1944.

Palani, the son of Arunachalam Pillai, filed O.S. No. 86 of 1957 on the file of the District Munsif’s Court of Tiruvaiyaru for recovery of possession of the three items of properties which Rathnasami Pillai took under the family arrangement executed on his behalf by his mother Sengamalam. To that suit he impleaded his mother as the first defendant, Sivakolunthu Pillai, the alienee from Rathnasami as the second defendant and Natesa Moopanar and Ramasami Pillai the alienees from Sivakolunthu Pillai as defendants 3 and 4. Defendants 1 and 3 were ex parte and defendants